About your Search

20120928
20121006
STATION
CSPAN 4
CNBC 2
CSPAN2 1
MSNBC 1
MSNBCW 1
LANGUAGE
English 11
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
of a bigger picture the fact that the obama foreign policy is unraveling literally before our eyes and on our tv screens. gregg: i suspect that is point you would share? >> the media and "new york times" owes mitt romney a apology. he was right. waited 15 hours, the concerns that silence and weak statement out of cairo was inappropriate response. he was right. the obama administration waited 15 hours as the administration developed. their first reaction was to go after mitt romney. the mead yu followed that and we're finding mitt romney was right. this administration had a very weak reaction to a growing threat and people need to wonder what would have happened if the president came out an condemned this hours as it was happening before the ambassador was killed. gregg: rick, thank you very much. appreciate it. jenna: more on that story throughout the day for sure. meantime a powerful typhoon toppling trees and power lines and proving deadly. where this storm is hitting, we have that just ahead. >>> plus independent voters, they were key to putting president obama in the white house but could
d date will focus on foreign policy. earlier this week the carnegie endowment for peace posted a discussion on the president's role in leading foreign policy. they talked about challenges facing the u.s. including american influence and engagement globally, the changing international order and emerging nations. two of the featured panelists included thomas friedman, "new york times" foreign affairs columnist and author of "the world is flat." and jessica mathews, carnegie president and director of national security office of global issues. >> good evening. my name is david rothkopf, and i will be the moderator for this evening. in the carnegie endowment discussion about how should the next american president engage the world. this is a debate format discussion. we have a terrific group of panelists here. starting on the far right we have professor john ikenberry of princeton. next is tom friedman of the new york times. next to him is our own jessica matthews of the carnegie endowment, and beside jessica is bob kagan at the brookings institution and we are going to cover several
have a demonstration that has not been clear on foreign policy, and there has been a lack of leadership. in 2009, there were protesters in iran. we heard nothing from our government. in 2011, the government finally stepped forward and we saw some sanctions put in place. i am happy to see european countries have also stepped forward and into a limited sanctions against iran. but we need to have a strong administration who is going to make it clear that a line needs to be drawn. we have never heard from this government. we have never heard them say that iran should not be in reaching uranium. -- enriching uranium. we need to make clear if we are going to be leaders, if the united states of america is going to be a leader in foreign policy and keep stability in this world as has been our mission in the past, then we need to make it clear. >> sen. fischer, thank you. senator kerrey, 30 seconds. >> i'm not running for president so i do not want to disagree with president obama or governor romney on iran, but we cannot allow them to acquire nuclear weapons. but what happens afterwards? they d
believe this is an area where we have to stand united as americans on this foreign policy. i have voted for tough and biting sanctions against iran and believe that that process needs to continue to play itself out. all options on the table, but i also would never frivolously, not quite the right word. i would never without thoughtful plans send our men and women into harm's way without an exit strategy and an assurance we are going to be effective. >> our next question is from robert kennedy, directed first to representative baldwin. >> representative, the situation in afghanistan, american troops being killed by the people that they're training to provide security forer that country, some of those training missions now have been put on hold at least temporarily. how in your opinion, should americans continue to be at risk in that environment? is it too unstable of an environment for effective security exercise to continue? your thoughts on that. >> i appreciate that question. in 2001, i voted to authorize use of mill tear force in afghanistan. in the days and months following the nen
, which i believe is focused on foreign policy. i just want the candidates to be asked about this. >> there's also, mika, a front page in the "new york times" that everybody ought to read saying u.s. abandoning hopes for taliban peace deal. just to go back to afghanistan. it says one of the expectations was that we could batter the taliban coming to the table to work out some kind of a deal. well, we all could've handed our government history books that would indicate over history that wasn't going to happen. so the idea that's a surprise that the taliban isn't going to suddenly sit down with us and work out a government and work alongside us should not come as a surprise to people, but apparently it is. now we walk away from that possibility. >> obviously afghanistan has a long history with the british, the soviets, everybody. and there's a famous saying, you can't want democracy for more than they want it for themselves. so we are not going to change the whole culture of afghanistan. it's not why we went there. we went to deal with al qaeda and terrorism and it became a nation-b
hampered from doing any of it. >> tonight, they will not go into the foreign policy stuff. the one part where obama is weak is this flip-flopping, if you will, on the libya stuff. that's the weakness, the nugget, if you will, the window opening. they won't go into that tonight, or they shouldn't go into it. >> thank you, guys, for the pregame. appreciate it. quick programming note. cnbc's coverage of the first presidential debate begins tonight at 7:00 p.m. eastern time. >> if you've got your reaction shots ready? we have a different director today. >> yeah. >> god forbid -- let me just try. surprised. >> just be ready. because it's coming. >> i need to know. it's a long morning. >> he's thrown in with us trying to follow our conversation around the table. but be careful. >> almost got me. i was doing that. >> oh, you were? >> yeah. >> i'm listening to you intently. >> thank you. i appreciate it. >> don't take me when i'm listening to andrew seriously. anyway. did you get that? i figure when i do the great things -- >> this is a youtube moment. it will go viral. >> you've got to watch e
on defense. the question, really, is it's got to be on issues of foreign policy and areas where he might get to do that. so interesting time for the president. and like i said, the hardest part about this and out of all the element os testify campaign, debates are the worst. it parolizes the campaign. it seizes up, particularly if you come out of the gate and do not have a good performance. it puts all the pressure on the president, puts pressure on the staff. so the next two weeks, not going to be fun in the obama camp but i would expect a sharper more offensive-minded debate. >> as you point out, you're dealing with an area where the headlines have not gone their way in the past month. dan, i loved having you on. we'll see you next time. >> good to see you. >> dan bartlett joining us from atlantic. ga gary cokaminsky. >> i'm here in the control room. i was watching like much of the viewers. meg whitman joined. a lot of people wondering why is the slot down again today? let me tell you. every time a ceo comes on the air there's anticipation that the ceo is going to say something to at least
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)